SIDHARADHAN K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether any permission is necessary for advertising Ayurvedic treatment given by individuals, institutions etc is the main question to be decided in this case. Nowadays if we look at newspapers or magazines, advertisements like this are usual. Even the full front page of the major newspapers in Kerala are booked for advertisement for treatment, tests, and even for advertising drugs. Nobody can blame the management of newspapers/magazines for these advertisements because these type of advertisements are their main source of income. These are published as advertisements and not as news and therefore probably they may not be responsible for the contents in the advertisement. Then who has to consider the contents of these advertisements and who has to take action, if there are any misleading advertisements in connection with the medical treatment? First I will consider the facts of this case. The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(2.) The petitioner is a registered medical practitioner and holder of D.A.M from the Government Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is the case of the petitioner that he is having a licence to manufacture certain drugs. According to the petitioner, he hails from a reputed family of Ayurvedic practitioners and is the proprietor of N.P. Ayurveda Hospital at Kadambanadu South, Adoor, Pathanamthitta District. Exhibit P2 is an amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, by which certain restrictions are there for the advertisement of Drugs. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of a unique identification number in order to facilitate publication of advertisement as per law and that has not been considered for the reason that the software is yet to be programmed. According to the petitioner, he is legally entitled to advertise the name of his hospitals and facilities therein. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in the prescribed format to advertise Ext.P4(a). The same was rejected as per Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 it is stated by the Deputy Drug Controller (Ayurveda) that he has no authority to grant permission. That was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition, and as per Ext.P6, an interim order was passed by this Court allowing the petitioner to provisionally publish the advertisement. The present writ petition is filed apprehending that the respondents will not allow publication of Ext.P16 notice.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.